Linear A to Linear B

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

In a message dated 10/15/99 12:48:37 AM, Larry Trask wrote:

<<We've been seeing quite a bit of speculation on this list about possible
stories for Linear A and Linear B.  Well, look.  The conventional position, as
I understand it, is this... [given below]

I know of no single piece of substantial evidence that conflicts with the
standard interpretation.  Does anybody?  If not, then what reason can
there be for constructing ever more complex, ever more implausible and ever
more outlandish alternatives?  What can we possibly gain from this? How does
any given alternative story account for the known facts better than the
standard story?>>

Well, I'll try not to belabor this then, if there is nothing to gain in
anything but the standard explanation.

But there is now some evidence that may "conflict" with the standard
explanation.  And I don't know if an alternative explanation accounts for the
facts "better" than the "standard" explanation (Larry's criteria) but there
are some that seem to work just as well.

As I mentioned before there is new evidence.  Two years ago, it could be
stated with confidence as to Linear A that "Only three sites outside of Crete
itself have so far produced examples of true texts (as opposed to an
individual sign or two) in this script: Ayia Irini on Keos, Phylakopi on
Melos, and Akrotiri on Thera."

This seems to no longer be the case as a number of true texts in Linear A and
an intermediate form between A and B form of it were recently found at
"Canaanite" sites in Isreal.  I posted some information about it earlier
based on it presentation at the UCinn symposium in '97.  I've been told these
findings will be published soon.  M. Finkelberg, who was the first to present
this new evidence, has suggested that:  "Since it can be shown that the
script of the Lachish inscription is intermediary between Linear A and Linear
B, it can further be inferred that the place where the direct graphic
predecessor of Linear B developed should be sought in areas other than Minoan
Crete..." (Abstract: Bronze Age Writing: Contacts between East and West/THE
AEGEAN AND THE ORIENT IN THE SECOND MILLENNIUM,1997)

The importance of these findings apparently centers around two facts, both of
which might put into question the origins and content of Linear A and the
relation of Linear A to B.

1. There is apparently a large gap in time between Linear A and B that leaves
open what the direct source of B was.  ("For many years, the tablets at
Knossos were dated within the period ca. 1425-1385 B.C.  [end of LM II or ca.
1425 B.C. (Evans); early LM IIIA2 or ca. 1385 B.C. (Popham)], but there is a
growing consensus that they are to be attributed not to the destruction
horizon of ca. 1385 B.C. at Knossos but rather to a subsequent destruction of
the site sometime in the mid- to later 13th century, that is, to a period
broadly contemporary with the Linear B tablets from the Mainland. The most
recent and perhaps most decisive piece of evidence in favor of a later
dating in the 13th century B.C. for the Knossos tablets is the discovery
of a pair of tablets at Chania in a LM IIIB1 destruction context, one of
which appears to have been written by a scribal hand already known at
Knossos.")  This means that there might be AS MUCH AS 400 years potentially
separating Linear B from Linear A. ("The latest Linear A inscriptions appear
to be no later than LM I and hence all predate the supposed Mycenaean
occupation of Knossos in LM II and early LM IIIA.")

The finding of "transitional" Linear A-B in Canaanite settlements apparently
in the intervening period therefore would suggest that Linear B was not
necessarily the Greek adoption of a "Minoan" script, one that may have been
out of use in Crete for some time before it was adopted by the Mycenaeans.

2. The findings also raise the question of whether Linear A itself arose in
Crete, by the very fact that the "proto" scripts of Linear A - called
"pictograms" or "glyphs" - have been found in Anatolia, in the Aegean and
elsewhere.  The assumption has always been that these were merely Minoan
trade markings - like the "token" markings used prior to the development of
cuneiform.  But the appearance of Linear A and transitional text outside of
Crete might leave open the idea that only the accident of clay inscriptions
preserved the Minoan versions of Linear A.   So that one might consider that
the difficulty in deciphering Linear A may lie in the fact that it did not
actually evolve in a Minoan context.  (See message dated 10/19/99 12:54:01
PM, from petegray at btinternet.com: <<I would therefore be very cautious in
using the argument that the script of Linear A must reflect the language
well, since it was "invented" for Linear A.>>)  Part of the ambiguoty is
created by the fact that even Linear B contains a large amount of either
pictograms, ideograms or logograms.  A true pictogram would intend to have
meaning without regard to spoken language.  Apparently one explanation being
considered for the Lachish inscriptions is that Linear A might not reflect a
single language but instead an intentionally multiregional accounting script
using multi-cultural symbols.

Both these alternative don't seem "ever more implausible and ever
more outlandish" and they do seem to have some factual advantages over the
"standard" explanation.  And I certainly hope I haven't wasted anyone's time
by presenting them.

Larry Trask wrote:
[Linear A was used to write the unknown language we call Minoan.  In all
likelihood, it was invented for the purpose of writing that language.  Minoan
was not Greek, was not closely related to Greek, was very likely (though not
certainly) not even IE, and was very possibly a language of which we have no
other knowledge.

Linear B was used to write an archaic form of Greek.  It seems highly likely,
perhaps even close to certain, that Linear B is derived in some way from
Linear A, most likely that it simply represents a modification or adaptation
of Linear A for the purpose of writing an entirely different language.

Now, as far as I can see, this scenario is not only the simplest possible one
but the most obvious interpretation of the evidence at our disposal, such as
that evidence is.  The scenario seems to be entirely consistent with the
evidence.]

Regards,
Steve Long